LCO 2/8111

Declaration by the Queen declaring that She and
Her children
shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor

[3647/52, 3647/41]

Cabinet document

Reference: extract from 20th Cabinet
Conclusions

Date: 20 Feb 1952

removed and destroyed.

For complete series see Cab (Cabinet Office)
Classes

signed: JP Adams Date: 17-10-91

23rd February, 1952

Dear Mr. Whittick,

According to the cabinet conclusion Number 2 of
the 20th
February the Cabinet invited the Lord Chancellor, in consultation
with the
Home Secretary and Law Officers, to prepare and submit to the Cabinet a draft
proclamation
declaring that the Queen and her descendants would continue to bear the
name of Windsor.

The Lord Chancellor has accordingly prepared a
draft for
consideration by the Home Secretary and the Law
Officers. I enclose the
draft together with a copy of

the proclamation of the 17th July, 1917, and a
Note on the
draft. The Lord Chancellor hopes to
arrange a meeting m his room to
discuss the draft at a time which would suit the Home Secretary and the
Law
Officers.

Yours sincerely,

P.D.

Assistant private secretary

R. J. Whittick, Esq.

BY THE QUEEN

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS Our beloved Grandfather
His late Majesty King
George the Fifth did by Proclamation dated the seventeenth day of July
one
thousand nine hundred and seventeen declare out of His Royal Will and
Authority
that His House and Family should thenceforward be styled and known as
the House
and Family of Windsor and that all the descendants in the male
line of Her
late Majesty Queen Victoria who should he subjects of these
Realms, other
than female descendants who might marry or might have
married, should bear
the name of Windsor;

AND WHEREAS it was
the desire and intention of Their
late Majesties King George the Fifth and King George the
Sixth that the House
and Family of any of Their descendants who should succeed Them whether
as King
or as Queen of these Realms should continue to be styled and known as
the House and Family of Windsor;

. AND WHEREAS We, having
by the Will of God become Queen

of these Realms, have determined that,
in accordance with
the desire and intention of Their late Majesties of Blessed and
Glorious
Memory, Our House and Family shall continue to be styled and
known as the
House and Family of Windsor, and that all Our descendants who are
subjects of
these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry and
their descendants,
shall bear the name of Windsor;

AND WHEREAS We
have declared this Our determination in
Our Privy Council: NOW THEREFORE We out
of Our Royal Will and Authority Do
hereby declare and announce that Our House and Family shall
continue to be
styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all
Our
descendants who are subjects of these Realms, other than
female descendants
who may marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.

GIVEN at Our Court at Buckingham
Palace
this
day
of
in the year

of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and
fifty-two in the
First year of Our Reign.

GOD SAVE
THE QUEEN

The Royal Family Name

Note on draft Proclamation

The need for a Proclamation about the Royal Family
name
arises from the wording of the proclamation of
1917. Those who were to bear
the name of Windsor were expressed to be "all the descendants in the
male
line of Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other
than female
descendants who may marry or who may have married."

The Queen is a descendant of Queen Victoria in the
male
line, but she is a female descendant who has married, and her
children and
other descendants are not descended from Queen Victoria in the male
line.

It follows that, as far as that proclamation
goes, neither
the Queen nor Prince Charles nor Princess Anne bore the name of Windsor
before
her accession, nor do they bear it now.

This result could not have been the intention of
George the
Fifth in 1917, but the fact remains that the draftsmen of the
proclamation did
not provide expressly for the event of the Sovereign being a Queen.

The substance of the draft therefore is that
the Queen is
carrying out the desire and intention of George the Fifth and George
the
Sixth, and that the reason why she has to take action is
that she is a Queen
and not a King and that as far as the name of Windsor is
concerned, the
proclamation of 1917 does not fit her case or that of her descendants.

One of the difficulties of drafting is caused by
the desire
that there should have been no period since the accession during which
the
Queen and her children were not of the House and Family of Windsor and
did not
bear the name of
Windsor. The family
name could not have been Windsor
before the Queen determined that it should
be. It hardly seems
right to
imply that the Queen began to think about her family name at the moment
of her
accession.

There is fortunately a distinction between the
name on the
one hand and House and Family on the
other. It is not clear
that
Princess Elizabeth ceased to be of the House and Family of Windsor when
she
married, and the draft is worded on the assumption that she did
not.
There seems no difficulty in the Queen declaring that her House and
Family
should continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of
Windsor, and
this continuity makes less important any interval between the accession
and the
determination about the name.

The draft does not say expressly that the Queen
herself is
to bear the name of
Windsor. It is not
clear that a Queen need have any
surname herself.

It seems enough that she should be of the House
and Family
of Windsor and that her descendants should bear the name of Windsor.

The third recital omits the words "in the male
line" which appear in the proclamation of
1917. The reason is
that
Princess Anne is not descended from the Queen in the male
line. Yet it
seems right that until she marries she should bear the name of
Windsor, in so
far as she needs any surname at all; ( and so with any other daughters
who may
be born hereafter.

The omission of the words "in the male line" makes
it necessary to insert the words "and their descendants" after the
words "other than female descendants who may
marry".
Otherwise, the children of (say) Princess Anne would have been given
the name
of Windsor instead of their father's family name.

The third recital contains the phrase "ascend the
Throne of these Realms" It has been suggested that some Dominion might
conceivably object to this phrase. A possible alternative would
be
"become Queen of these Realms", but "Queen of these Realms"
comes two lines before and the repetition is to be avoided, if
possible.

Lord Chancellor's Office,

House of Lords, S.W. 1.

23rd February, 1952.

Lord Chancellor

Draft Proclamation declaring that the Queen and her
Descendants should continue to bear the name of Windsor

The Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the
Solicitor
General and the solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. W.R. Milligan) will
attend
a meeting to discuss these three papers at 11.45 a.m. tomorrow,
Tuesday, 26th
February, in Conference Room B at the Cabinet Office. The
Lord Advocate will
be unable to attend.

25th February, 1952

draft as sent to Cabinet 26 Feb.

CABINET

ROYAL FAMILY NAME

Memorandum by. the Lord Chancellor

At their Meeting on 20 February, the Cabinet
invited me, in
consultation with the Home Secretary and the Law Officers, to prepare a
draft
proclamation declaring that the Queen and Her descendants would
continue to
bear the name of Windsor (C.C. (52) 20th
Conclusions, Minute
2). I
now circulate a .draft proclamation for this purpose -

Annex I - which has been prepared in consultation
with my
colleagues.

I believe it to be apt for the purpose, and I
recommend its
adoption.

1.
On the 17th July, 1917, King George V
issued a proclamation declaring that His House and Family should
thenceforth be
styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and relinquishing
the use
of all German titled and dignities. Attention is drawn to the
wording of that
proclamation (see annex II). Those who were to bear the

name of Windsor wore expressed to be "all the
descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria who are subjects of
these
Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or who may have
married."

2.
The Queen is a descendant of Queen Victoria
in the male line, but She is a female descendant who has married, and
Her
children and other descendants are not descended from Queen Victoria in
the
male line. It follows that, as far as that proclamation goes, neither
The Queen
nor Prince Charles nor Princess Anne bore the name of Windsor before
Her
accession.

3.
I think that Princess Elisabeth did not
cease to be of the House and Family of Windsor when She married.
In my draft
The Queen declares that Her House and Family shall continue to be
styled and
known as the House and Family of Windsor.

4.
It is arguable at least that after The
Queen's accession the name to be borne by Her children and other
descendants
would not be Windsor. This could not have been the intention of King
George V in
1917, but the draftsman of the proclamation did not provide expressly
for the
event of the Sovereign being a Quean.

5.
The substance of my draft is therefore that
The Oueen is carrying out the intention of Her Father and
Grandfather, end
that the reason why She had to take Action is that She is a Queen and
not a
King, and that, as far as bearing the name of Windsor is concerned, the
proclamation of 1917 does not fit the case of Her descendants. My draft
accordingly recites that The Queen has determined that Her descendants
shall
bear the name of Windsor, without specifying how soon after Her
succession she
took this course.

6.
The draft does not say expressly that The
Queen herself is to bear the name of
Windsor. It is
not clear that a
Queen need have any surname herself. It seems enough that She
should be of the
House and Family of Windsor and that Her descendants should bear the
name of Windsor.

7.
The third recital omits the words "in
the male line" which appear in the proclamation of 1917. The
reason is
that Princess Anne is not descended from The Queen in the male
line. Yet it seems
right that until she marries she should bear the name of Windsor, in so
far as
she needs any surname at all; and so with any other daughters who may
be born
hereafter. The omission of the words in the male
line" makes it
necessary to insert the words "and their descendants" after the words
"other than female descendants who may
marry".
Otherwise,
the children of (say) Princess Anne would have been given the name of
Windsor
instead of their father's family name.

House of Lords, S.W. 1.

26th February, 1952.

Final paper submitted to the Cabinet on
26.2.52 C(52) 53

“Royal Family Name”

See Cabinet Papers.

Royal Proclamation

Sir Albert

At Cabinet this morning I was asked to consider
with the
Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, and the Leader of the House
whether the
draft which I provided required any amendment. I have now heard from
them and
they think it is all right as it stands.

I understood that if we were satisfied it need
not go
back to Cabinet. Check this with Brook.

S.

My dear Gavin

Thanks for your note. I didn’t want to trouble
you – the
thought merely struck me last night. I had no chance of mentioning it
before
Cabinet.

So far as I am concerned whatever you think
right – do!
& it has my blessing = what would be a cause for cursing would be a
meeting
of ministers. We have enough of them already !

V Hanyl (?)

Cabinet document

Reference: extract from Cabinet Conclusions (22nd)

Date: 27 Feb 1952

removed and destroyed.

For complete series see Cab (Cabinet Office)
Classes

signed: JP Adams Date: 12-10-91

The Hon. Sir Albert Napier, KDB, KC,
Lord Chancellor's
Office

with Sir Norman Brook's compliments.

PRIME MINISTER

The Lord Chancellor (who is on the Woolsack) has
asked me to
report to you on his behalf that, as requested at this morning’s
Cabinet, he
has discussed with the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the
Minister of
Health the point which was raised on the drafting of the Proclamation
about the
name of the Royal Family. They are all now agreed that the draft
in Annex I of
C.(52) 53 should stand unaltered.

The next step is for you to submit it to the Queen.

(When the Queen has approved it, Sir Alan
Lascelles will
then notify the Queen’s decision to Governors-General in other
Commonwealth
countries. And after allowing an interval of one or two days for
the
Governors-General to inform the Commonwealth Governments a Privy
Council will
be held for the purpose of making the Proclamation.)

27th February 1952.

newsclipping

THE ROYAL FAMILY'S SURNAME

By PATRICK MONTAGUE-SMITH, Assistant Editor of
'Debrett'

MANY people are asking whether
the accession of Queen
Elizabeth has made necessary any change in the name of our Royal House
or in
the surname of the Royal Family. There is no doubt that Queen Elizabeth
is the
fourth sovereign of the House of Windsor, for it has always been the
custom to
regard a Queen Regnant as belonging to her father's House. Her
surname, however,
allowing ordinary English custom, is Mountbatten, which she acquired on
her marriage
in 1947 to Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, then newly
created Duke of
Edinburgh, Hence Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall, bears the surname of
Mountbatten, and may one day be the first sovereign of that House to
reign over
us.

King George's Edict

No better choice, for a surname and House
name could have
been found than that of Windsor, which George V adopted by proclamation
in
1917, for this Royal Castle has been the home of our sovereigns
since William
the Conqueror. Here many were born, and at Windsor all since George III
have
been laid to rest. Contrary to public belief, however, the reason for
the
change was not simply a wish to drop a German-sounding name for the
Royal House
in favour of an English one. A need had arisen to provide the
Royal Family
with a surname, for the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha did not possess
one. King
George had just issued an edict decreeing
that membership of the Royal
Family was not to extend beyond the reigning
Sovereign's grandchildren. Great-grandchildren,
therefore. would have been left in the awkward position of having no
surname
and possibly no title.

One effect of this edict is that if the younger
children of
the Duke of Gloucester or the late Duke of Kent have children, these
latter
will be known simply as Mr. or Miss Windsor.
If the name of Windsor had
not been introduced in 1917, they would have had no surname.

The earliest known male ancestor of the House of
Windsor was
Thierry of Buzici, a Thuringian noble living in 950, who founded a line
of
Counts of Wettin, a small town on the banks of the River Saale, in
Saxony; but
they did not acquire much importance until they inherited Saxon titles
and land
through the female line in the fifteenth century.

The Tudors

The only previous Royal Houses in our history who
have
possessed surnames were the Welsh Tudors, and the Bruces and Stewarts
of
Scotland. The name " Plantagenet," which arose from the sprig of
flowering broom (Plante Genet)—the badge of Geoffrey. Count of Anjou,
father of
Henry II—did not come into use until it was adopted by his descendant,
Richard
Duke of York, the father of Edward IV. during the Wars of the Roses.

The Tudor dynasty took its name from Henry VII's
great-grand
father, Maredudd (Meredith) ap Tudor, son of Sir Tudor Vychan of
Penmynydd, Anglesey.
Surnames had not then come into use in Wales, sons being usually
described as
" ap " (son of) their father's Christian name.

Both the Bruces and the Stewarts had surnames
before they
succeeded to the Scottish Throne by marrying heiresses. The Stewarts
acquired
their name through their hereditary office of High Steward of Scotland;
in the
time of Mary, Queen of Scots, it became " Frenchified " to Stuart.

There has been much controversy as to whether the
House of
Hanover possessed a surname, and if so which. Although this is
popularly
believed to have been Guelph, a former Clarenceux King of Arms has
dismissed this
idea as absurd. The family's ancestors were lords of Este, the capital
of a
small feudal principality in Lombardy since the ninth century, but by
marriage
with the Bavarian heiress of the House of Guelph they removed from
Italy to Germany.
If, therefore, the House of Hanover can be said to possess a surname,
it would
be d'Este, by which name the children of Queen Victoria's uncle, the
Duke of
Sussex, by his secret marriage were in fact known.

Although the Duke of Edinburgh may be said to
belong to the
House of Mountbatten, as he has adopted that surname, this in reality
was his
mother's family. The Mountbattens (or Battenbergs, as they were
formerly known)
descended from the morganatic marriage of Alexander, son of the Grand
Duke
Louis II of Hesse, with the Countess Julie von Hanke in 1851.

Famous Dynasty

Genealogically, however, the Duke belongs to the
Royal
Danish House of Schleswig - Holstein -Sonderburg-Glucksburg, which has
no
surname, and is in turn a branch of the House of Oldenburg, a family
which
originated in Friesland. It is remarkable that not only do the Kings of
Denmark, Norway and Greece belong to this dynasty, but so also did the
last
seven Tsars of Russia, who were Romanovs only by female descent.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of our Royal
House is
the continuity of descent from each preceding dynasty, in spite of such
momentous struggles for the Crown as Hastings, Bosworth, and the 1688 "
Revolution." Thus the Queen and her husband descend from every House
which
has occupied our Throne: from Wessex, Godwin, Normandy, Blois and
Anjou, to the
Tudors, Stuarts and the Hanoverians —a record not paralleled in any
other
reigning family.

newsclipping

Is Windsor still the Royal name?

By VALENTINE HEYWOOD

IT is rather surprising that suggestions should
have been
published that Queen Elizabeth will be the last of the House of Windsor
and
that her successor on the Throne will be the first of the House of
Mountbatten.

Attention should be paid to the obvious spirit, as
well as
the wording, of the Proclamation which, in 1917, King George V issued
dealing
with the names and styles, of the Royal Family. It declared
categorically that
the King had "determined that henceforth Our House and Family shall be
styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor." (The italics are
mine.) It is true that in a subsequent clause specific mention was made
"that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother
Queen
Victoria . . . shall bear the said name of Windsor," but it would seem
clearly to have been the King's intention that the dynasty should for
ever
remain the House of Windsor.

There was then probably no thought that in so
short a time
the succession would pass to a daughter. In any case there is more than
one
precedent for the name of a historic dynasty being retained even though
succession has come through the female line. This was the case with the
Houses
of Habsburg, Romanov, and Orange, and there are, of course, numerous
instances,
in princely and noble families both here and abroad.

Moreover, any argument that the Queen's children
are Windsor
only on the distaff side is countered by the same factor in regard to
Mountbatten. The Duke of Edinburgh is paternally a member of the
ancient
Danish-Greek Royal House of Sleswig-Holstein-Sonder-burg-Glucksburg.
His mother
is a Mountbatten, sister of Earl Mountbatten of Burma. He adopted
the surname
of Mountbatten when he renounced his princely rank and styles on
becoming a
naturalised British subject.

If it be held that with the Royal Family, as with
others,
children take the surname of their father, a new Proclamation by
the Queen
would presumably be necessary to give effect to her grandfather's wish
that the
name of the family and the dynasty should continue to be Windsor.

There was frequent argument in the past about the
surname of
the Royal House on the point of whether it was Guelph or Este in the
case of
the House of Hanover, or Wettin in the case of Queen Victoria's family
in view
of her marriage with Prince Albert. It seemed particularly appropriate
that in
apparently washing to decide once for all what should be the name of
his
dynasty, King George should have chosen that of the historic castle
which has
been its principal home for nearly a thousand years.

Scots seek legal ruling on "Elizabeth II"

The Scottish Covenant Association is to seek a
legal ruling
on whether the Queen's title in Scotland should be Elizabeth I or
Elizabeth II.
The Association's national committee, meeting in Glasgow yesterday,
decided to
raise an action of declarator in the Court of Session.

The chairman, Dr. John Mccormick, said that a
legal
committee had been appointed to draw up the Covenant's case as a matter
of
urgency. The action would be a purely legal argument, involving no
witnesses.
If successful, it would mean that oaths of allegiance taken in Scotland
to
Queen Elizabeth II would be void.

LORD CHANCELLOR TO PRIME MINISTER:
MEMORANDUM OF 3RD MARCH, 1952

Royal Surname

1. I regret that this must
be a long note, but it is
a complicated matter,. My conclusions are summarised at the end
and the
documents referred to are annexed. The principal difficulty
arises I think
from the fact that before 1917 the Royal Family had no
surname. Hereditary
surnames, which were in origin either
nick-names or patronymics or
territorial names, only became common in this country and
elsewhere in Europe
round about the thirteenth century.

Royal Houses have continued the practice,
previously
obtaining amongst commoners as well as nobles, of
styling themselves by
territorial names which are not, in the proper sense,
surnames. Thus, it is
idle I think to speculate whether the
surname of the children of Queen
Victoria was Wettin or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because in
fact they possessed no
surname.

2. This is true of all the Houses to
which Monarchs of
this country and other countries in Europe have belonged: York,
Lancaster, Orange,
Hanover, Hapsburg, Wittelsbach, and so on, are not names
belonging to
persons but names of Houses, Only two of our Royal
Houses have possessed
surnames in the accented sense: Tudor and Stuart. It
has never been
suggested, however, so far as I know, that Mary Tudor's name was
changed by
her marriage; and if she had had any children they would have
belonged to the
House of Hapsburg as well as to the House of Tudor (the
latter having by then
risen to the dignity of a Royal House). The Earl of
Darnley, the father of
James I, was himself a Stuart and a cousin of Mary Queen of
Scots, so that
there was no question of any change there. Prince George of
Denmark, the
husband of Queen Anne, was of the House of Oldenburg, but
no one supposes
that their children bore the name of Oldenburg. In
later times the Duke of
Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex married outside the Royal
Marriage Act. Their
children were called respectively FitzGeorge and D'Este,
but these names were
adopted by them: they did not descend upon them automatically.

3. Everyone knows that the practice in this
country in relation
to the styles and titles, not only of the Sovereign
and the Royal House,
but also of the nobility, differs, and has differed
from the earliest times,
in many fundamental respects from Continental practice. Continental
practice
can provide no precedents, but there is nevertheless a close
analogy in the Netherlands.
Queen Wilhelmina married a Duke of Mecklenburg. The names and titles of
Juliana
before she ascended the Throne are given in the
Almanach de Gotha as
Juliana Louise Emma Marie Wilhelmina, Princess of the
Netherlands, Princess of
Orange-Nassau, Duchess of Mecklenburg, Princess of
Lippe-Biesterfeld. She
is not shown as possessing any surname, and the styles of
her eldest daughter
are given as Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard, Princess of
the Netherlands,
Princess of Orange-Nassau, Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld.
There is thus no
indication that the House of Orange—Nassau possesses
a surname; and if it
did it would not be Mecklenburg or Lippe-Biesterfeld. Similarly,
the Prince
Consort could not have conferred the name of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Wettin upon
his progeny, nor (if he had not changed his name)
could the Duke of
Edinburgh have conferred upon his children the name of his House,
Schleswig—Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg.

4. The situation, as I see
it, is this. Before 1917 the
Royal Family had no surname; they belonged to the House of
Guelf-D'Este, of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and to several other Houses as well.
There was no need for
them to have a surname because they had titles. Then, on
the 17th July 1917
the King issued a Proclamation declaring, first, that His
House and Family
should be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor,
and, second, that
the. descendants of Queen Victoria (within certain limits) should bear
the name
of Windsor. This Proclamation was followed four months later by Letters
Patent
issued on the 30 November 1917 and providing that the title
of "Royal
Highness" with the dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their
christian
names (which makes a surname unnecessary) should be limited to
the children
and the children of sons of the Sovereign and to the eldest son of
the eldest
son of the prince of Wales. Thus the great-grandchildren of the
Sovereign
(other than the eldest son of the eldest son of
the Prince of Wales) would
not have these titles and so would have to have a surname.

5. These two documents, the
Proclamation and the Letters
Patent, must be read together; and reading them in this way,
it is clear
that the intention of the Sovereign was to do two things:
(1) to declare
that the name of His House and Family should be Windsor,
and (2) (quite a
separate thing) to ensure that the orogeny of members of the
House of Windsor
who would in future, as a result of the Letters Patent, be
unable to style
themselves "H. R.H. Prince X" and would, therefore, have to
have a
surname, should have the surname of Windsor.

6. In my view the Queen, though belonging to
the House and
Family of Windsor, has never had a surname because from birth She
has had a
title. She is within the Letters Patent and She did
not acquire a surname
on Her marriage. Similarly Her two children, who art; also of the
House and
Family of Windsor, have from their birth had a title and have had
no surname.
In the period before the Queen came to the
Throne this was not by reason
of the Letters Patent of 1917 (for they were not
children of a son of the
Sovereign) but by reason of the Letters Patent of the
22nd October 191+8,
which were issued before the birth of Prince Charles
and extended the
Letters Patent of 1917 to include the children of the marriage
between
Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh. The Letters Patent
of 1948 would
of course have been unnecessary if the children of the Queen had
been
children of a son of George VI and not of a daughter.

7. Thus in my view the question
of a surname does not
arise at all in relation to the children or children
of sons of the Queen. For
they have or will have the style and title of
Prince or Princess and Royal
Highness. On the other hand children of daughters,
being outside the Letters
Patent,will not have such style and title and
will take their father's
name. This is what the children of the Princess Royal did.
The need for a
surname would only arise in relation to any of the Queen's
great-grandchildren who, by reason of the Letters Patent of the 30
November 1917, were not entitled to the style of "Royal Highness"
and the
prefix of "Prince". It is in my view clear from the
proclamation
and Letters patent of 1917 that it was the intention
of George V that the
surname of any of the descendants of a Sovereign should within
certain
limits' be Windsor. The trouble about the
Proclamation, so far as the
surname is concerned, is that it provides that those
who were to bear
the surname of Windsor were "all the
descendants in the male line
of Queen Victoria .... other than female descendants who
may marry or may
have married". The Queen is a descendant in the
male line from Queen
Victoria but She is a female descendant who has
married; and her children
pre not descended from Queen Victoria in the male line: they
are therefore
not expressly covered by the terms of the Proclamation.
This was in my view
a slip due to the fact that George V did not
contemplate his grand-daughter
coming to the Throne, and the object of
issuing a fresh Proclamation is
not to affect but to remove any doubts
about the status and name of the
Queen or Her children and grandchildren (which are made clear by the
Proclamation and Letters Patent of 1917 as extended by the Letters
Patent of
1948), and to determine the name of some of Her
great-grandchildren.

8. So much for the surname. Now for the
name of the House
and Family of Windsor. If, as I maintain, T.R. H. Prince
Charles and Princess
Anne did not as children of the
Duke of Edinburgh acquire any surname
belonging to him, still less could his marriage to the
Queen have had any
effect in law upon that part of the Proclamation of George
V which declared
that His House and Family should thenceforward be styled and known as
the
House of Windsor. As Princess Elizabeth the Queen continued on
her marriage
to belong to the House of Windsor, although, if the
Duke of Edinburgh had
not resigned his Greek and Danish titles, She might
have been said also to
belong to the House and Family of
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. As
Queen She is "the fountain and source of all dignities" and
She
does not share this attribute with Her husband. In
conformity with the
accepted doctrine that marriage with a woman confers no honour or
rank upon a
man, our Constitution has never attached any special rank
or privileges to
the husband of a Queen Regnant. In every way he ranks below her.
Even in the
special circumstances of the marriage of Philip II of Spain and
Mary I of
England when Philip had the peculiar title of King Consort
and both he and
Mary were jointly proclaimed Defenders of the Faith",
Parliament effectively
secured that he had no powers.

The Present Sovereign ascended the
Throne as a member of
the House and Family of Windsor and, although She has power to
alter the
name of the House by Proclamation, until such a
Proclamation is made the
Proclamation of George V remains effective. The situation would
only be
different if the House of Windsor had become extinct,
and a member of some
other House had ascended the Throne. Moreover Mountbatten is not
the name of
a Royal House: any pretensions to that status were
extinguished by the
Letters Patent of the 14th July 1917 by which Prince Louis of
Battenberg (the
father of Princess Andrew of Greece who is the mother of
the Duke of
Edinburgh) relinquished the title of Serene Highness and
his other German
titles and assumed the surname of Mountbatten. But even if
the Duke of
Edinburgh at the time of his marriage had belonged to a
Royal House, it is
inconceivable that his marriage could have had the effect
in law of altering
the style of the Royal Family as declared in
the Proclamation of George V.

To sum up: there are two
distinct questions:

A. The surname of the Royal Family, and

B. The name of the Royal House. A. Surname

1. Names of Houses are not the
same as surnames, e.g.
Battenberg was the name of a House: Mountbatten is a surname.

2. No one who has the style of
"Royal Highness"
and the prefix of "prince" has a surname. The Proclamation
of
George V did not confer surnames upon persons entitled to this
style.

3. Those who may style themselves "H.
R. H. Prince
X" are, since 1917 those authorised to do so by the
Letters Patent of
the 30 November 1917 and the Letters Patent of the 22nd October 1948
. They include the Queen while she was Princess
Elizabeth and Her children and the
children of her sons, who therefore have and will have no
surname.

4. This is a matter to be
decided solely by English law and
practice. Continental law and practice have no relevance.

5. The new Proclamation (apart from clarifying the
position
as stated above) would be confined in its operation
to some of the
great-grandchildren of the Queen, in relation to whom
it would merely be carrying
out the manifest intention of George V and of George VI.

B. Name of the Royal House

1. It was the manifest intention of
George V to provide by
His Proclamation of 1917 that so long as there was a member of
His House and
Family to ascend the Throne the name of the Royal House should be
Windsor.

2. The Queen is of the House and Family of
Windsor and did
not cease to be so on Her marriage.

3. The proposed new Proclamation so far as is
necessary confirms
and renews the Proclamation of George V.

SIMONDS

3RD MARCH, 1952.

ANNEX IV

DRAFT PROCLAMATION BY THE QUEEN A
PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS Our beloved Grandfather His late Majesty
King George
the Fifth did by Proclamation dated the seventeenth day of July
nineteen
hundred and seventeen declare His Royal Will and Authority that His
House and
Family should thenceforward be styled and known as the House and Family
of
Windsor and that all the descendants in the male line of Her late
Majesty Queen
Victoria who should he subjects of these Realms, other than female
descendants
who might marry or might have married, should "bear the name of Windsor;

AND WHEREAS it was the desire and intention of
Their late
Majesties King George the Fifth and King George the Sixth that the
House and
Family of any of Their descendants who should succeed Them whether as
King or
as Queen of these Realms should continue to he styled and known as the
House
and Family of Windsor;

AND WHEREAS We, being called by the Will of God to
ascend
the Throne of these Realms, have determined that, in accordance with
the desire
and intention of Their late Majesties of Blessed and Glorious Memory,
Our House
and Family shall continue to be styled and known as the House and
Family of
Windsor, and that all Our descendants who are subjects of these Realms,
other
than female descendants who may marry and their descendants, shall bear
the
name of Windsor;

AND WHEREAS We have declared this Our
determination in Our
Privy Council:

NOW THEREFORE We out of Our Royal Will and
Authority Do
hereby declare and announce that Our House and Family shall continue to
be
styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all Our
descendants who are subjects of these Realms, other than female
descendants who
may marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor,

GIVEN at Our Court at Buckingham Palace this day
of in the
year

of Our Lord One thousand nine hundred and
fifth-two in the
First year of Our Reign

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN

CABINET DOCUMENT

REFERENCE Extract from CC(52) 36th conclusions

DATE .........3 April 1952....................

REMOVED AND DESTROYED.

FOR COMPLETE SERIES SEE CAB (CABINET OFFICE)
CLASSES

SIGNED .J.P. Adams.... DATE ...17-10-91....

10, Downing Street

Whitehall.

Mr. Churchill, with his humble duty to The Queen,
begs to
advise that Your Majesty should be pleased to make a Declaration in
Council,
establishing the Name of the Royal House and Family, to the following
effect: "I
hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be
styled and
known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants,
other than
female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name
of
Windsor."

(Sgd) WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

3rd April. 1952.

10, Downing Street, Whitehall.

3rd April, 1952.

I enclose herewith a copy of the Submission which
the Prime
Minister has sent to The Queen containing the text of Her Majesty's
proposed
Declaration in Council about the Name of the House and Family of
Windsor.

In a covering letter Mr. Churchill said that he
understands
that this Declaration will be made at a Council to be held on
Wednesday, April
9, at 12.30 p.m. May I assume that you will take all the
necessary steps to
this end and will arrange for subsequent publication of the Declaration
in the
Gazette.

I am sending a copy of this letter and the
enclosure to
Rankin.

(Sgd) J.R. COLVILLE

F.J. Fernau, Esq., T.D.

DRAFT CABINET PAPER SECRET

THE NAME OF "WINDSOR"

On the 27th February the Cabinet considered the
draft of a
Proclamation concerning the name of the Royal House and of the Queen's
descendants, and invited me la consultation with certain of my
colleagues to
examine the drafting of the Proclamation and to report our conclusions
to the
Prime Minister, This we did, but, as it subsequently
appeared that the same
object could be achieved more simply by means of a Declaration in
Council than
by a Proclamation, I prepared a draft Declaration in consultation with
the Lord
Privy Seal, the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health. The
draft as
amended by Her Majesty is annexed (Annex I). A notice would, if
Her Majesty
approves, be published in the Gazette after the meeting of the Privy
Council at
which Her Majesty is pleased to make it.

I take this opportunity of placing on record,
after consultation
with my colleagues, the reasons which have led us to the conclusion
that such a
Declaration should be made as will ensure that the name of the
Royal House and
Family is not changed, and that the surname of Windsor is borne
by Her
Majesty's descendants.

1. There are two distinct questions involved: the
first is
as to the name of the Royal House: the second is as to the surname
which
certain of the descendants of the Queen shall bear. These
questions are of
constitutional importance and it is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers
to form
an opinion upon them and advise Her Majesty accordingly.

2. In the consideration of these problems the
Proclamation
made by King George V on the 17th July 1917 (Annex II) and the
Letters Patent
issued by Him on the 30th November 1917 (Annex III)
are of decisive
importance, and I doubt whether any useful guidance can be obtained
from
precedent or analogy in this or any European country.

3. The Proclamation of 1917 declared first that
the King's
House and Family should be styled and known as the House and Family of
Windsor,
and second (a quite separate thing) that the descendants of Queen
Victoria
"who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who
may
marry or may have married" should "bear the surname of Windsor.
The
proclamation also renounced on behalf of the King and his descendants
and all
other descendants of queen Victoria, who were "subjects of these
Realms", all German titles.

The Letters Patent of the 30th November 1917
(which amended
Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria on the 30th January 1864)
provided that
the title of Royal Highness with the dignity of Prince or Princess
prefixed to
their christian names should be borne by the children and the children
of sons
of any Sovereign and by the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince
of
Wales, but should not (except as therein mentioned) be borne by any
other
descendant of any Sovereign.

4. The action of King George V in renouncing
the German
titles of His family and la limiting the number of persons entitled to
the
style of Royal Highness was widely acclaimed at that time when we were
at war
with Germany. Later, when the passions of war had subsided, it
was also
generally regarded as having been an act of wise statesmanship which
had
confirmed and increased the prestige of the monarchy.

5. The Proclamation of the 17th July 1917 and the
Letters
Patent of the 30th November 1917 must be read together to determine
their
effect upon the two questions at issue, the surname of the Queen's
descendants
and the name of the Royal House.

(a) Persons entitled to the style of Royal
Highness and the
prefix of Prince before their Christian names do not
possess surnames. Hereditary
surnames, which were in origin usually nicknames or patronymics,
only became
common in this country and elsewhere in Europe about the 13th. century.
Royal Families, continuing the ancient practice of styling themselves
by territorial names, did not acquire surnames. Thus neither "Wettin"
nor "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" was the surname of the children of Queen Victoria,
These were not surnames, and they, having titles, possessed no
surname. So also, in an earlier generation, when the Dukes of
Cambridge and Sussex
married outside the Royal Marriage Act, it became necessary to
invent the surnames of FitzGeorge and D'Este for their progeny. It may be
said that members of two of our Royal Houses possessed surnames, and it is true
that the Tudor and Stuart dynasties are known by those names, which were the
surnames of their founders; but, as I have already said, such precedents can
be of little value today.

(b) The Letters Patent of 1917 in limiting
the number of
persons who may be entitled to the style of "H.R.H. Prince X" (for
whom, as I have said, a surname is unnecessary) made it essential
to provide a
surname for those of the Royal Family who is the future, by reason of
the
Letters Patent, would not be entitled to that style. Accordingly
the
Proclamation of 1917 provided that that surname should be Windsor.

(c) Thus Her Majesty the Queen, being
within the Letters
Patent of 1917, has never had a surname because from birth. She
has had a
title.

(d) But, though Her Majesty, being within
the Letters
Patent of 1917, did not need a surname, the position of Her children
was
different. As soon as Her Majesty came to the Throne, Her children
would come
within the same Letters Patent as "children of any Sovereign of these
Realms"; but, if they should be born before She came to the
Throne, they
would not come within it. Accordingly on the 22nd October 1948,
shortly after
Her marriage to the Duke of Edinburgh, King George VI issued letters
Patent
(Annex IV) by which He declared that the children of that marriage
should enjoy
the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or
Princess
prefixed to their Christian names in addition to any other titles of
honour
which might belong to them thereafter. Thus from their birth
Prince Charles
and princess Anne came within these Letters Patent and neither had nor
needed
any surname. And, as I have pointed out, as soon as Her Majesty
come to the
Throne, they came within the Letters Patent of 1917 as will any other
children
of the marriage. The Letters Patent of 1948 served a temporary
purpose and
will have no further operation.

(e) It follows from what I have said

(i) that the Question of a surname does not arise
in
relation to the children or children of sons of the Queen or to
the eldest son
of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, for they have, or will have,
the
style and title of Prince or Princess and Royal Highness:

(ii) that the children of daughters of the Queen,
being
outside the Letters Patent, will not have such style and title and will
take
their father's name, as did the children of the Princess Royal; and

(iii) that the sons of grandsons of the Queen
(other than
the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) will not be
within the
Proclamation or the Letters Patent of 1917 and, if they have a surname
at all,
will have the surname of Mountbatten.

(f) I do not think that it can be questioned
that it was
the intention of King George V and was within the spirit and purpose of
His
proclamation that the descendants of a Sovereign of these Realms should
within
certain limits bear the name of Windsor; but (perhaps because he
did not
contemplate His granddaughter coming to the Throne) the Proclamation
did not
give full effect to His intention. The result will be that,
unless Her Majesty
makes the appropriate Proclamation or Declaration, Her
great-grandchildren who
need surnames will not bear the name of Windsor but that of Mountbatten.

Name of the Royal House

(a) The Proclamation of 1917 must be read and
interpreted in
the light of conditions prevailing in the twentieth century in this
country.
It may well have been the practice in the past that the name of a Royal
House
was changed if an heiress married a member of another Royal House,
although
sometimes the names of the Houses were combined in much the same way as
their
coats-of-arms. These matters of high policy have no relevance to
the
consideration of the present problems.

(b) It cannot be doubted that by His Proclamation
of 1917
King George V intended that, so long as there was a member of His House
to
ascend the Throne, the name of the House should be Windsor. It is
true that he
did not expressly provide that that should be so if a female descendant
of His
came to the Throne; but on the other hand He did not provide to the
contrary.
Female descendants who may marry are not excluded in this part of the
Proclamation as they are in the later part which deals with the surname.

Nor can it be questioned what was the wish of King
George
VI. It may be assumed that He expected to be succeeded by a
daughter, but it
is certain that it was His wish that the name of the Royal House should
in that
event continue to be Windsor. When he conferred a dukedom upon
H.R.H. the Duke
of Edinburgh he did not intend that the name of Edinburgh should
supersede that
of Windsor as the name of the Royal House.

The Queen ascended the Throne as a member of the
House of
Windsor. It has not been suggested that She ceases to be of that
House on Her
marriage. Doubts have been expressed about the position of Her
children and
these should be removed.

(c) Permanence and continuity are valuable
factors in the
maintenance or a constitutional monarchy and the name of the Royal
House should
not be changed if change can be avoided. It was probably
considerations such
as these that led, in the Netherlands, to the continuance by Royal
Decree of
the name of Orange-Nassau as the name of the Dutch Royal House,
although the
succession has in recent times passed twice la the female line.

(d) Above all it is certain that, in
confirming what was
clearly the intention of Her father and grandfather, Her Majesty the
Queen
would be acting in accordance with the sentiments and desires of all
Her
peoples. Nothing could shake their loyalty and devotion to the
Queen and this
is personal to Her Majesty; but behind it lies their grateful memory of
Her
father and grandfather who immeasurably strengthened the institution of
monarchy and have given to the name of Windsor a significance that
should not
be lost.

SIMONDS

Lord Chancellor's Office,

House of Lords,

4th April 1952.

Sent to Sir Norman Brook on 5th April
1952.

DRAFT CABINET PAPER SECRET

THE NAME OF "WINDSOR"

On the 27th February the Cabinet considered the
draft of a
Proclamation concerning the name of the Royal House and of the Queen's
descendants, and invited me in consultation

with certain of my colleagues to examine the
drafting of the
Proclamation and to report our conclusions to the Prime Minister.
This we did,
but, as it subsequently appeared that the same object could be achieved
more
simply by means of a Declaration in Council than by a Proclamation, I
prepared
a draft Declaration in consultation with the Lord Privy Seal, the
Home
Secretary and the Minister of Health. The draft as amended by Her
Majesty is
annexed (Annex I). A notice would, if Her Majesty approves, be
published in
the Gazette after the meeting of the Privy Council at which Her Majesty
is
pleased to make it.

I take this opportunity of placing on record,
after
consultation with my colleagues, the reasons which have led us to the
conclusion that such a Declaration should be made as will ensure that
the name
of the Royal House and Family is not changed, and that the surname of
Windsor
is borne by Her Majesty's descendants.

1. There are two distinct questions
involved: the first is
as to the name of the Royal House; the second is as to the surname
which
certain of the descendants of the Queen shall bear. These
questions are of
constitutional importance and it is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers
to form
an opinion upon them and advise Her Majesty accordingly.

2. in the consideration of these problems
the Proclamation
made by King George V on the 17th July 1919 (Annex II) and the Letters
Patent
issued by Him on the 30th November 1917 (Annex III) are of decisive
importance,
and I doubt whether any useful guidance can be obtained from precedent
or
analogy in this or any European country.

3. The Proclamation of 1917 declared first
that the King's
House and Family should be styled and known as the House and Family of
Windsor,
and second (a quite separate thing) that the descendants of Queen
Victoria
"who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who
may
marry or may have married" should bear the surname of Windsor.
The
Proclamation also renounced on behalf of the King and his descendants
and all
other descendants of Queen Victoria, who were "subjects of these
Realms", all German titles.

The Letters Patent of the 30th November 1917
(which amended
Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria on the 30th January 1864)
provided that
the title of Royal Highness with the dignity of Prince or Princess
prefixed to
their christian names should be borne by the children and the children
of sons
of any Sovereign and by the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince
of
Wales, but should not (except as therein mentioned) by borne by any
other
descendant of any Sovereign.

4. The action of King George V in renouncing
the German
titles of His family and in limiting the number of persons entitled to
the
style of Royal Highness was widely acclaimed at that time when we were
at war
with Germany. Later, when the passions of war had subsided, it
was also
generally regarded as having been an act of wise statesmanship which
had
confirmed and increased the prestige of the monarchy.

5. The Proclamation of the 17th July 1917
and the Letters
Patent of the 30th November 1917 must be read together to determine
their
effect upon the two questions at issue, the surname of the Queen's
descendants
and the name of the Royal House.

The Surname

(a) Persons entitled to the style of Royal
Highness and the
prefix of Prince before their Christian names do not possess
surnames.
Hereditary surnames, which were in origin usually nicknames or
patronymics,
only became common in this country and elsewhere in Europe about the
13th
century, Royal Families, continuing the ancient practice of styling
themselves
by territorial names, did not acquire surnames. Thus neither "Wettin"
nor "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" was the surname of the children of Queen
Victoria.
These were not surnames, and they, having titles, possessed no
surname. So
also, in an earlier generation, when the Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex
married
outside the Royal Marriage Act, it became necessary to invent the
surnames of
FitzGeorge and D'Este for their progeny. It may be said that
members of two of
our Royal Houses possessed surnames, and it is true that the Tudor and
Stuart
dynasties are known by those names, which were the surnames of
their founders;
but, as I have already said, such precedents can be of little value
today.

(b) The Letters Patent of 1917 in limiting
the number of
persons who may be entitled to the style of "H.R.H. Prince X" (for
whom, as I have said, a surname is unnecessary) made it essential to
provide a
surname for those of the Royal Family who in the future, by reason of
the
Letters Patent, would not be entitled to that style. Accordingly
the
Proclamation of 1917 provided that that surname should be Windsor.

(c) Thus Her Majesty the Queen, being within the
Letters Patent
of 1917, has never had a surname because from birth She has had a
title.

(d) But, though Her Majesty, being within
the Letters
Patent of 1917, did not need a surname, the position of Her Children
was
different. As soon as Her Majesty came to the Throne, Her
children would come
within the same Letters Patent as "children of any Sovereign of these
Realms"; but, if they should be born before She came to the Throne,
they
would not come within it. Accordingly on the 22nd October 1948,
shortly after
Her marriage to the Duke of Edinburgh, King George VI issued Letters
Patent
(Annex IV) by which He declared that the children of that marriage
should enjoy
the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince
or Princess
prefixed to their Christian names in addition to any other titles of
honour
which might belong to them thereafter. Thus from their birth
Prince Charles
and Princess Anne came within these Letters Patent and neither had nor
needed
any surname. And, as I have pointed out, as soon as Her Majesty
came to the
Throne, they came within the Letters Patent of 1917 as will any other
children
of the marriage. The Letters Patent of 1948 served a temporary
purpose and
will have no further operation.

(e) It follows from what I have said

(i) that the question of a surname does not arise
in relation to the children or
children of sons of the Queen or to the eldest son of the
eldest son of the Prince of Wales, for they have, or will have the
style and
title of Prince or Princess and Royal Highness:

(ii) that the children of daughters of the Queen,
being
outside the Letters Patent, will not have such style and title
and will take
their father's name, as did the children of the Princess Royal; and

(iii) that the sons of grandsons of the Queen
(other than
the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) will not be
within the
Proclamation or the Letters Patent of 1917 and, if they have a surname
at all,
will have the surname of Mountbatten.

(f) I do not think that it can be questioned that
it was the
intention of King George V and was within the spirit and purpose of His
Proclamation that the descendants of a Sovereign of these Realms should
within
certain limits hear the name of Windsor; but (perhaps because He did
not
contemplate His granddaughter coming to the Throne) the Proclamation
did not
give full effect to His intention. The result will be that,
unless Her Majesty
makes the appropriate Proclamation or Declaration, Her
great-grandchildren who
need surnames will not bear the name of Windsor but that of Mountbatten.

Name of the Royal House

(a) The Proclamation of 1917 must be read
and interpreted
in the light of conditions prevailing in the twentieth century in this
country. It may well have been the practice in the past that the
name of a
Royal House was changed if an heiress married a member of another Royal
House,
although sometimes the names of the Houses were combined in much the
same way
as their coats-of-arms. These matters of high policy have no
relevance to the
consideration of the present problems,

(b) It cannot be doubted that by His Proclamation
of 1917
King George V intended that, so long as there was a member of His House
to
ascend the Throne, the name of the House should be Windsor. It is
true that he
did not expressly provide that that should be so if a female descendant
of His
came to the Throne; but on the other band He did not provide to the
contrary.
Female descendants who may marry are not excluded in this part of the
Proclamation as they are in the later part which deals with the surname.

Nor can it be questioned what was the wish of King
George
VI. It may be assumed that He expected to be succeeded by a
daughter, but it
is certain that it was His wish that the name of the Royal House should
in that
event continue to be Windsor. When he conferred a dukedom upon
H.R.H. the Duke
of Edinburgh he did not intend that the name of Edinburgh should
supersede that
of Windsor as the name of the Royal House.

The Queen ascended the Throne as a member of the
House of
Windsor. It has not been suggested that She ceases to be of that
House on Her
marriage. Doubts have been expressed about the position of Her
children and
these should be removed.

(c) Permanence and continuity are valuable factors
in the
maintenance of a constitutional monarchy and the name of the Royal
House should
not be changed if change can be avoided. It was probably
considerations such
as these that led, in the Netherlands, to the continuance by Royal
Decree of
the name of Orange-Nassau as the name of the Dutch Royal House,
although the
succession has in recent times passed twice in the female line.

(d) Above all it is certain that, in confirming
what was
clearly the intention of Her father and grandfather. Her Majesty the
Queen
would be acting in accordance with the sentiments and desires of all
Her
peoples. Nothing could shake their loyalty and devotion to the
Queen and this
is personal to Her Majesty; but behind it lies their grateful memory of
Her
father and grandfather who immeasurably strengthened the institution or
monarchy and have given to the name of Windsor a significance that
should not
be lost.

SIMONDS

Lord Chancellor's Office, House of Lords.

S.W.1

4th April 1952

ANNEX I

DRAFT DECLARATION AS AMENDED BY THE QUEEN

My Lords,

I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and
My children
shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that
My
descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their
descendants,
shall bear the name of Windsor.